In post 141, Awoo wrote:You seem to be taking everything very personally jamiet, is something the matter?

Heaven forbid people actually start confronting you on game related points.

lol

Not sure of my read on Jamie yet, while it seems like he's trying a lot of his content is just complaining about the site and its mechanics. Probably just whiny town. Was considering voting until I saw that there was already a wagon and I think we got all the reactions we were going to get from that. I don't really have reads on anyone else yet, being early as it is.

Quick - apparently I'm just always going to think you're scum in early game lol

In post 166, Maki Harukawa wrote:Alright all caught up, for the most part, liking my vote need to see more from Aubrey also keeping a closer eye on Cheeky I don't really understand the Jamie townreads and I'd like to hear more on that.

Were you saying you don't understand why people are townreading Jamie, or you don't understand why he townreads the people he does?

In post 176, Maki Harukawa wrote:Cheeky and Awoo are people I both scumread but Cheekys jump on Awoo feels super slimy UNVOTE: I don't know who I want to vote in the 2 because I doubt it's scum vs scum

If Cheeky and Awoo both feel scummy to you, but Cheeky's jump feels "super slimy" and you don't think they're SvS, wouldn't it make sense to vote Cheeky? What is the hesitation? Just trying to understand your thought process.

In post 244, Epic Fial wrote:Lots of fluuuuuuufffffffffffff from Jamie, and his wagon dissolved faster than a fast-relief aspirin in a vat of hydrochloric acid. I'd like to see the pressure maintained longer.

Mixed in with the disappointment AtE comment, and someone explaining they thought she plays like a scum IC, I tend to want to lean scum here. You remind me of a less analytical Cabd, which means I’m likely to scum read you no matter what, so I’ll have to wait for further things and use logic here over gut/tone.

Honestly I didn't respond to the scum IC comment because I need to research that more, I literally didn't know IC was not a town-only role.

The reaction to my challenge to CommKnight was very interesting. Everyone who said it was a bad idea is entirely correct. Of course I don't want CommKnight to commit to suiciding if he's town and gets his D1 read wrong. That would be a waste.

My intention in proposing this apparently mad idea was twofold. First of all, to dissuade CommKnight from being too cocky about his gut, and anyone else from just slavishly following him. Secondly, I wanted too see people's reactions. I'm going to spend some time assessing those later today.

For the record I do stand by my assertion that a VT should not be afraid to die. A VT dying is not as good as scum dying, for sure - but it's way better than a PR dying. Plus, flips are informative. A lot of people have interacted with me today and if I died, those interactions could provide many clues.

That said, all things considered I'd prefer to stay alive, and I'm definitely town, so if you've got a good scumread, go for them - and tell us why. It's time to start bringing this phase home, my fellow townsfolk.

1) Not sure if I believe this was all a ploy, or if this is backpedaling and "I MEANT TO DO THAT."2) Remember how we were trying not to out the masons? Saying you're VT is narrowing the pool. We already talked about this. Stahp.3) "I'm definitely town, fellow townsfolk" is the most LAMIST post I've ever seen.

In post 412, Jamiet99uk wrote:##CALL GM - can we get a vote count please?

1) Better results if you actually follow the instructions and use "@Mod"2) Mod already said VC was not incoming as they'll be busy.

In post 421, Jamiet99uk wrote:I'm not trying to out the Masons or narrow the pool. Maybe you are.

What? Your defense for saying you were okay with being lynched was that a "VT should not be afraid to die, even though a VT dying isn't as good as scum dying," etc. So you are implying, if not flat out saying, that you are VT, which helps scum to narrow the pool of potential masons.

Either you are not as experienced on other sites as you say and are clumsily trying to cover your tracks, or you are intentionally gaslighting with your "maybe you are" comments when you get caught pulling this crap which would make you super scummy.

In response to people telling you that your "challenge" to CK was a bad idea, you posted this:

In post 410, Jamiet99uk wrote:For the record I do stand by my assertion that a VT should not be afraid to die. A VT dying is not as good as scum dying, for sure - but it's way better than a PR dying. Plus, flips are informative. A lot of people have interacted with me today and if I died, those interactions could provide many clues.

You certainly didn't seem afraid to die, and said that your flip would be informative. For me that really sounds like you are soft-claiming VT.

In post 515, Lalendra wrote:Sigh. I really don't want to townread Jamie after all that, but UNVOTE:

I already had some doubt, and his last few posts felt very Towny to me. And now I'm back at square one.

Was it you before who didn't want to unvote and kept their vote on someone because you didn't know where else to stick it? Why unvote now? What changed?

That was me, yeah. But we were really close to a lynch that I was starting to not feel so great about. Keeping a vote parked on someone with a couple of votes is a lot different from keeping it on someone who is L-1.

In post 635, CommKnight wrote:This is meant for those new to this site *cough* Jamie *cough*. So no bullshit about meta from your previous sites. You hammer him without a claim, I'll rip you a new ass tomorrow.

In post 635, CommKnight wrote:Also... Quick is at L1, if he's lynched and not me, whoever intends to hammer, give him a chance to claim Mason/Not Mason. if he's hammered before he claims. i will rip right into that person tomorrow 150%. This is meant for those new to this site *cough* Jamie *cough*. So no bullshit about meta from your previous sites. You hammer him without a claim, I'll rip you a new ass tomorrow.

@Flubber - Thought you were playing a joke by re-voting the slot with a new name after replacing in and having a predecessor who was already on that wagon. If not then I misinterpreted. I'll sit down and shut up now.

In post 102, Jamiet99uk wrote:I'm thinking about our Masons. Important we keep them alive if we can. They effectively have a 1-shot copscan.

What steps shall we take to keep the masons alive?

Let's try not to lynch them.

This is where I first started thinking a lot of you posts are just really low impact. Like given the conversation around you bringing up "don't lynch Masons" and then (I think) Aubrey saying "OK how do we do that" and then you respond like this here... its just kinda Scumm because it looks like you are trying to be helpful without really adding anything.

In post 320, Jamiet99uk wrote:Assemble tells us to follow CommKnight's gut / Assemble's vote is not on the same target as CommKnight....

Hmm.

In post 340, Jamiet99uk wrote:Because if that's normal here, I probably just need to leave this website.

In post 342, Jamiet99uk wrote:@CommKnight: While I'm still playing: So, do you agree to the following?

- If I sheep your vote this turn, and (y)our target is lynched, and flips TOWN, then you agree that YOU will be the lynch tomorrow, and to that ens, will vote for yourself tomorrow in those circumstances?

I'm not quitting. I just don't see the point in this website if the games are so shit that half the players quit during the course of an average game like CommKnight has suggested. This game has already had what I'd regard as a worryingly high level of replacements...

It just seems like you are spreading your posts out too much at the least and alternatively I can see you doing this on purpose to make it look like you are having a bigger impact on the game than you really are. Like, your content just doesn't really go that deep, no offence. It just looks Scummy because this game is pretty dense with detailed stuff to talk about and it looks like you are still asking surface level questions.

In post 512, Awoo wrote:VOTE: Quick Nope, votes on my wagon look good. Except for quick. 344 was just a wagon building vote. Your vote on me is just a wagon building vote. 352 is weak reasoning for joining the wagon. Like the other guy said, it's a weak hypothetical that relies on... what? I like him for scum here.

You vote him since his content is not deep enough but he's pretty town though? voting, pressuring for good reasons. I was just despairing in my post over jamie being doomed not to live to endgame because of silly/annoying things he does and that town won't look past that. But we can though, you know? So I'm happy I made that post.

First, I am not going to explain my Town read on Jamie, I'm just not. Second, I did actually state that I thought your post when you voted Jamie was all kinds of wrong. I aslo stated a reason the other people didn't. But others saw that post was bad as well, so if anything, I was just agreeing with my previous post by voting for you.

I assume when you say I "almost got there" you were referring to my comment about the two posts you seemed to like. Since you didn't link the posts in your giant list, I quoted them for everyone's convenience here. Still not seeing what about these two posts gives you a townread, unless it's gut, and I don't buy the "anyone who doesn't see it my way must be a noob" mentality, so I guess that's the end of our conversation since you're not willing to explain further.

I don't really worry too much about level of content, lurking is NAI - life gets busy and I know I have lurked as both alignments. Active lurking/fluffposting is different imo. But I don't feel that's what I've been doing. You are obviously entitled to disagree.

In post 667, lucca261 wrote:not really feeling this CommKnight lynch. having doubts on the wagon. Jamie is voting him 'cause he doesn't like him, Fial is wanting Comm to OMGUS him and I don't even remember why Chisa is voting him.

the Quick lynch feels manufactured too, and it's on a top townread of mine. the start of the wagon was really weird with the whole awoo L-1 vote, and Lalendra/Maki jumping on him at the last time make me question both wagons. I'm currently thinking both are on town.

let's quick lynch Lalendra.

What makes you want to lynch me over Maki, since you say we both "jumped on" the Quick wagon?

Do you see what I see with comm saying quick is scum off of gut but then following up with reasoning afterwards? It looks like throwing shade for the sake of keeping the lynch off of him in that context.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he is doing exactly what he said he is doing - leaning scum based on gut and then pointing out scummy things as he sees them. That may be confbias, but it's not scummy to me.

In post 716, Maki Harukawa wrote:This might be town v town...I like both of these guys last few days

UNVOTE:

Instead of pushing toward a no-lynch, why not vote for someone you DON'T think is town? Or give some more reads? I feel like we have plenty of info and even if you don't like either of the leading wagons, a persuasive argument on someone you actually think is scum could start a new one. It's more productive than just unvoting.

In post 663, Lalendra wrote:I don't really worry too much about level of content, lurking is NAI - life gets busy and I know I have lurked as both alignments. Active lurking/fluffposting is different imo. But I don't feel that's what I've been doing. You are obviously entitled to disagree.

I'm entitled to an opinion that I'm sure a number of other people share. <--- which is odd since I recall some negative comments thrown you're way, but little follow up. Quick and Comm sure have protected you from being a viable lynch today it seems.

Active lurking and fluff posting are equally bad, so what are you really trying to say here.

...That's exactly what I said. "Lurking is NAI. Active lurking/fluffposting is different." I equated active lurking and fluffposting. I don't consider them to be the same as lurking. Lurking is when life gets busy; active lurking is when you're actively posting but not saying anything.

Haha no, I just meant that I could tell you were responding to me without saying "@Lalendra".

I see it a little differently, maybe it's because I have a pre-teen and my week has been shit and there was a holiday in the middle of it but my standard MO is to stay caught up on everything that's going on and only post if something catches my eye, if I have a question, or if someone asks me something. I generally don't make long-winded, analytical posts, partly because I'm lazy/strapped for time and partly because I feel like giving out too much information about how I'm forming my reads makes it easier for scum to manipulate me or change their behavior to get townread.

In post 798, Lalendra wrote:I would not be opposed to a Jamie wagon, I have thought his play was anti-town at best from the beginning (and if I'm being honest, the complaints about the site are wearing on me).

I thought you were wavering on him throughout the day?

If you look at my ISO, I wavered on him VERY early, but for the remainder of the game I have been pretty unimpressed with his play.

Not manipulating mechanics. At this point idc if you're scum or not, we can go about sorting that out once you're gone. If you're scum, great - if you're just toxic, rude and anti-town, then that's good too. I don't understand why people insist on self-voting, attacking others personally, etc. It's not just playing against your wincon, it ruins the game for everyone else. Take your toxicity elsewhere.

I think Comm is right, yesterday we got pretty distracted by Comm v Quick and even if there is scum there, we still have 2 others to find. I like where his head is at, and my confidence was shaken by a recent resounding loss, so I'll sheep this.

In post 919, Lalendra wrote:I think Comm is right, yesterday we got pretty distracted by Comm v Quick and even if there is scum there, we still have 2 others to find. I like where his head is at, and my confidence was shaken by a recent resounding loss, so I'll sheep this.

VOTE: lucca

You can infer and misrep all you want but I literally stated my reasons prior to voting you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, they are there.

I will explain a little bit here. Being a newer player, I have very little confidence in my reads, and I am easily manipulated. As a result, I try not to post long drawn-out analyses of everyone's play, because in doing so I frequently open myself up to manipulation by scum. I also have a track record of being FOSed when I post these drawn-out analyses and change my reads later (even though that should be the natural progression of the game, but whatever). So, to avoid drawing too much attention or being manipulated, I tend to just sheep the people that I trust, and don't push hard unless something REALLY seems off to me. This game has been difficult for me to sort, which is why I'm taking a backseat.

@Comm - It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Though I find it interesting that I am scumread a lot more for it than Comm appears to be. Guess I have to be more aggressively confident.

In post 919, Lalendra wrote:I think Comm is right, yesterday we got pretty distracted by Comm v Quick and even if there is scum there, we still have 2 others to find. I like where his head is at, and my confidence was shaken by a recent resounding loss, so I'll sheep this.

VOTE: lucca

You can infer and misrep all you want but I literally stated my reasons prior to voting you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, they are there.

I'll ask. Why do you think I'm scum? Your words, please.---

@flub, 936: maybe. I would like the wagon on me evolve, to see the progressions and who will vote me/who won't. Currently, Awoo vote sucks, but it can't be four scum on my wagon, right? So I'll wait right now. questions: what do you think of Lalendra?/what's your read on my slot?

@quick, 940: agree that her lack of explanations could be a meta question. what is scummy, regardless of meta, is her convenient posts and opinions. she is going with the flow of the game. her votes are Jamie (when he was the biggest wagon), Quick (when you were the biggest wagon, after asking for reasons to vote him = a reason to easily sheep) and me (when I am the popular wagon). she is keeping her options open with hyper soft opinions and easy questions, as seen in 202, 671, 706. Her interactions with Comm are also strange, as she's sheeping his opinions and stating them again.It's not a strong case, but it's what I have at the moment.

---

I would say there's at least one scum on me. The only players with explicit reads on me before today were Flavor, Quick and maybe Comm. It's an easy vote for scum, because they can hide in ambiguity and easily sheep a confident player such as Comm, taking themselves out of his suspicion now. Sadly for them, I'm not going down without a fight.

You are being scumread by my top TR and as of right now, that is enough for me. Yes, I am sheeping Comm, I openly said that. Not sure how that's strange. Scum would have to be pretty stupid to say "I am sheeping my scumbuddy without any concrete reasoning."

@Comm - It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Though I find it interesting that I am scumread a lot more for it than Comm appears to be. Guess I have to be more aggressively confident.

why do you think that is? the Maki quote, I guess.

---

I could go Awoo. her vote is also bad, and a lot of what I said about Lalendra can be applied to him. But I think his day 1 was stronger. But he is definitely not a townread of mine.

I'm not sure, I can see it coming from either alignment. It almost sounds like a dare. Could be very confident town, I'm having trouble reading it which is why I haven't really delved much deeper than that. If I had to choose right now, I would say Maki is town and Awoo is scum, but I could also see both being scum.

In post 973, Torque wrote:Due to discussing this game in another thread, Jamiet99uk will be mod killed. They were aVanilla Town, turnedNeutral Survivor.

Well lynching that probably would have cost us an entire day so it's probably better this way.

In post 1077, CommKnight wrote:@Flubber, I'm just going to let you deal with Quick. I already got my opinion of him, I townread him, I'm leaving it at that. If I begin digging into him, it's going to be a back-and-forth toxic fight and I'm not putting up with that this game.

@Aubrey, well, we both seem to agree on Chisa mostly there. (Also Flubber and Awoo for being among the least scummy). If we get a scum flip from my list, I'll explain it out tomorrow of why I think it's highly unprobable of 2 scum being in any one pairings I made. But some of it is relying a bit on a gambler's fallacy. Except, unlike a regular gambler, I'm usually in the ballpark of being spot on.

I see Maki is not quite your scum read, but isn't quite your town read. Which I'll give you points for, for being honest there. I'd be willing to compromsie onto Chisa for today. If Chisa flips scum, in my mind it'd clear both Awoo's slot and Epic. Plus Chisa hasn't been a big help as of late even if we end up mislynching this. I'm sorta hoping scum fear kills me or kills outside of my suspect pool in hopes to not make this easier, when in fact I'm already processing possible motives for multiple kills tonight.

If we're in a chess game, right now I have the mafia in Check with 3 moves to Check-Mate. I can almost guarantee not killing me would be the biggest mistake they make tonight.

I'm not sure I understand the reason behind posting this. I understand that you're confident and that's cool but why are you baiting the NK?

@Quick - same reasons I was down to vote you before. And what question is that? You have a habit of quoting posts that are unrelated to the question you supposedly asked so I have a lot of trouble following when you reference a question but don't tell me where it is.

Are we really not going to talk about whether Epic is under some sort of post restriction and, if so, what that might mean?

@Quick: I don't see a question there. I see "Your reason for voting me is gut and that's not good enough because I can't counter gut so you need to set forth reasons for voting me." That is a statement, not a question. If I'm mistaken, please restate your question, because clearly quoting it twice did not make it any clearer for me.